To people who say getting on to disability benefits are easy, think again. They ask really bizarre questions and extrapolate what you can do from that, rather than directly asking things. They also often lie on their assessors reports (Capita and ATOS/IAS do assessments for PIP depending on where you live in the UK and Maxiumus/CHDA do assessments for ESA) - this is why more and more people are trying to get their assessments recorded. It's a shambles.

Also to whoever it was that said MH teams are "excellent" you clearly haven't been in the MH system yourself. It's awful for the vast majority of people, they're often quite negligent. The inpatient units aren't much better which is why people are still able to hurt themselves and often times kill themselves whilst being in inpatient units.

(Original post by Pathway)
This is really sad. Feel so sorry for her friends and family.

To people who say getting on to disability benefits are easy, think again. They ask really bizarre questions and extrapolate what you can do from that, rather than directly asking things. They also often lie on their assessors reports (Capita and ATOS/IAS do assessments for PIP depending on where you live in the UK and Maxiumus/CHDA do assessments for ESA) - this is why more and more people are trying to get their assessments recorded. It's a shambles.

The reality is that most claimants, not a small minority, are "outcome focused" in their answers to questions. That means that the answers they give are conditioned by what they think is the best answer. These are not straightforward lies or fraud, but nor are they accurate answers. Indirect questioning is the only way to get them off the script. If you ask them how far they can walk, you will always get a small number; 20 metres, 50 metres. Ask them how they got to the examination centre and you will find where they parked or what bus they came on.

The truth is that if assessments were recorded more people would fail. Independent verification of evidence almost always favours the "official" side.

(Original post by nulli tertius)
The reality is that most claimants, not a small minority, are "outcome focused" in their answers to questions. That means that the answers they give are conditioned by what they think is the best answer. These are not straightforward lies or fraud, but nor are they accurate answers. Indirect questioning is the only way to get them off the script. If you ask them how far they can walk, you will always get a small number; 20 metres, 50 metres. Ask them how they got to the examination centre and you will find where they parked or what bus they came on.

The truth is that if assessments were recorded more people would fail. Independent verification of evidence almost always favours the "official" side.

Unlikely would more people would fail. Over half of decisions get overturned at appeal - aka independent people from the DWP. Most of these new decisions aren't even disputed by the DWP. If the initial assessments were done correctly then people wouldn't have to go to Mandatory Reconsideration or the First Tier Tribunals to appeal their outcomes.

The assessors employed by these outside agencies are all doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists and occupational therapists.

Which means nothing, ime. Heck, mine asked me what one of my disabilities was. My non-medically trained friend could tell you what it is...

The tests are utterly ridiculous. I, for example, was asked if I could drive. I said no. She then decided that maybe I could because I don't have a piece of paper saying that I can't. I take medication which makes me tired, as well as not having enough vision. She then did an eye test which proved I can't legally drive.

The way the questions are worded are done to catch people out as well. And some of the assumptions made are utterly ridiculous.

(Original post by Pathway)
Unlikely would more people would fail. Over half of decisions get overturned at appeal - aka independent people from the DWP. Most of these new decisions aren't even disputed by the DWP. If the initial assessments were done correctly then people wouldn't have to go to Mandatory Reconsideration or the First Tier Tribunals to appeal their outcomes.

Throughout history where officialdom acquires an unchallengeable record, what happens is that the benefit of the doubt that is given to the lay party disappears.

The DWP do not send presenting officers to most PIP/ESA appeals, though the proportion is increasing. The DWP has always been more obsessed with claimants' sex lives. You will always getting a presenting officer for a living together case.

That doesn't mean the appeals are not contested. They are contested in the DWP submission.

About 2/3rds of appeals succeed.

The primary problem has always been the absence of medical evidence. The DWP doesn't collect worthwhile medical evidence before assessments. Their reasoning is that most cases don't go to appeal. Waiting for medical records will delay every case by between 10 and 26 weeks.

The main problem of the largest group of claimants is mental health, and they are the hardest group to make a casual diagnosis upon without medical records.

To change the success rate on appeals, involves collecting more medical evidence before the assessment takes place.

(Original post by Tiger Rag)
Which means nothing, ime. Heck, mine asked me what one of my disabilities was. My non-medically trained friend could tell you what it is...

The tests are utterly ridiculous. I, for example, was asked if I could drive. I said no. She then decided that maybe I could because I don't have a piece of paper saying that I can't. I take medication which makes me tired, as well as not having enough vision. She then did an eye test which proved I can't legally drive.

The way the questions are worded are done to catch people out as well. And some of the assumptions made are utterly ridiculous.

Asking you whether you could drive is a one way question. If you said "yes" to driving an unadapted car then for ESA you aren't going to be getting a scoring descriptor for activity 3 (reaching), 4 (picking up and moving things), 5 (manual dexterity), 6 (making self-understood), 7 (understanding communication), 8 (navigation), 10 (remaining conscious), 11 (learning tasks), 12 (awareness of everyday hazards), 13 (initiating and completing personal action), 14 (coping with change (probably)), 15 (getting about (probably) and you would have great difficulty in getting activity 2 (standing and sitting). If you said "no" all it proves is you are not going to be getting the points for 6 (making self-understood), & 7 (understanding communication).

Realistically, for ESA, someone who is wholly blind but can read Braille and has a guide dog but has no other problems would only get 9 points for activity 5c (cannot use a pen or pencil to make a meaningful mark). They aren't going to pass an ESA assessment and why should they? Why should someone be entitled to ESA as not being capable of working when the Secretary of State himself was blind.

(Original post by Duncan2012)
4 kids = over £240 a month in Child Benefit. Tragic for those involved, but what's really unfortunate here is that she didn't/couldn't prioritise paying for heating with some of that.

So those four children do not need feeding then?
I’d have a guess that you’ve never run a household with children. Don’t be ridiculous

(Original post by Sammylou40)
So those four children do not need feeding then?
I’d have a guess that you’ve never run a household with children. Don’t be ridiculous

Nothing ridiculous about my post. I was making a point this money wasn't means tested or assessed, and would be in addition to whatever other benefits she was receiving. Enough money to heat a home. Maslow's hierarchy of needs - survival should come first. Tragically for her family it didn't.

(Original post by Pathway)
Unlikely would more people would fail. Over half of decisions get overturned at appeal - aka independent people from the DWP. Most of these new decisions aren't even disputed by the DWP. If the initial assessments were done correctly then people wouldn't have to go to Mandatory Reconsideration or the First Tier Tribunals to appeal their outcomes.

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Asking you whether you could drive is a one way question. If you said "yes" to driving an unadapted car then for ESA you aren't going to be getting a scoring descriptor for activity 3 (reaching), 4 (picking up and moving things), 5 (manual dexterity), 6 (making self-understood), 7 (understanding communication), 8 (navigation), 10 (remaining conscious), 11 (learning tasks), 12 (awareness of everyday hazards), 13 (initiating and completing personal action), 14 (coping with change (probably)), 15 (getting about (probably) and you would have great difficulty in getting activity 2 (standing and sitting). If you said "no" all it proves is you are not going to be getting the points for 6 (making self-understood), & 7 (understanding communication).

Realistically, for ESA, someone who is wholly blind but can read Braille and has a guide dog but has no other problems would only get 9 points for activity 5c (cannot use a pen or pencil to make a meaningful mark). They aren't going to pass an ESA assessment and why should they? Why should someone be entitled to ESA as not being capable of working when the Secretary of State himself was blind.

Except, I said no. But for whatever reason, she assumed there was no reason why I couldn't because I couldn't provide the piece of paper she wanted. Apparently the letter from my GP stating how much vision I have wasn't enough.

It wouldn't debar 7. I can't hear properly and have a learning disability which causes communication difficulties.

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Asking you whether you could drive is a one way question. If you said "yes" to driving an unadapted car then for ESA you aren't going to be getting a scoring descriptor for activity 3 (reaching), 4 (picking up and moving things), 5 (manual dexterity), 6 (making self-understood), 7 (understanding communication), 8 (navigation), 10 (remaining conscious), 11 (learning tasks), 12 (awareness of everyday hazards), 13 (initiating and completing personal action), 14 (coping with change (probably)), 15 (getting about (probably) and you would have great difficulty in getting activity 2 (standing and sitting). If you said "no" all it proves is you are not going to be getting the points for 6 (making self-understood), & 7 (understanding communication).

Realistically, for ESA, someone who is wholly blind but can read Braille and has a guide dog but has no other problems would only get 9 points for activity 5c (cannot use a pen or pencil to make a meaningful mark). They aren't going to pass an ESA assessment and why should they? Why should someone be entitled to ESA as not being capable of working when the Secretary of State himself was blind.

Because the entire point of ESA and PIP is that it's a functional assessment. It isn't dependent on your diagnosis. So it doesn't matter if some person can be disabled and work and have no issues with mobility/daily living, where as the same diagnosis could apply to someone else and they have a vastly different functional outcome, they may be unable to care for themselves for example.

(Original post by Tiger Rag)
Except, I said no. But for whatever reason, she assumed there was no reason why I couldn't because I couldn't provide the piece of paper she wanted. Apparently the letter from my GP stating how much vision I have wasn't enough.

It wouldn't debar 7. I can't hear properly and have a learning disability which causes communication difficulties.

The learning disability is irrelevant. It is not a sensory impairment and therefore does not form part of activity 7.

The key is "using any aid it is reasonable to use" It will always be reasonable to use an aid that you in fact do use,

I am a stranger. If I type "the fire escape is at the end of the corridor" and you can fully understand that written message using whatever aids you do use, you shouldn't get 7.

I'm the first person to stand by claimants. Sanctions need a looking at for starters. Have people take responsibility but make exceptions, wtf.

But I wouldn't be surprised if she committed suicide by freezing herself to death. I know a lot of people in her position who have tried and failed and tried and succeeded. Not saying someone actually couldn't have frozen to death because they couldn't afford the leccy, on top of present health issues.

(Original post by Pathway)
Because the entire point of ESA and PIP is that it's a functional assessment. It isn't dependent on your diagnosis. So it doesn't matter if some person can be disabled and work and have no issues with mobility/daily living, where as the same diagnosis could apply to someone else and they have a vastly different functional outcome, they may be unable to care for themselves for example.

I fully accept that it is functional assessment. but please tell me where, if anywhere, you disagree with any of my specific comments. All I have done is identified the functions involved in a common activity.

(Original post by Duncan2012)
4 kids = over £240 a month in Child Benefit. Tragic for those involved, but what's really unfortunate here is that she didn't/couldn't prioritise paying for heating with some of that.

Against my better judgement I'll pop my 2p in here. Regardless of whether your estimate is right or not, I notice people who don't understand the reality of things tend to glaze over important factors because they're completely unaware they'd even exist: 240 quid for a month for daily feeding and other expenses for each child is nothing. You're thinking of 240 as a "big number" and not money that needs to pay for several things for several people. It goes quickly. I feel the common man would spend that much in one shopping trip for two people. Which is why on here people keep asking "can I live off 50 quid a week?" The answer is barely yes for a single person, let alone 4 kids. Many people would lose their mind if they had to live off benefits. It's not an easy holiday. Whatever got her into that position is irrelevant. Because the kids are here now and need to be taken care of and in a first world country there's little to no excuse for them not to be fed and warm in European winters.